What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Assessing Officers. The appeals were held to be not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Assessing Officers filed appeals for assessment years 2006-07 and 2009-10. The tax effect involved in these appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals with a tax effect below the CBDT's prescribed monetary limit are maintainable.

ITO vs Abid Merchant | s.254(1) | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.4605/Mum/2011

I.T.A. No.4684/Mum/2012

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार PER Bench- The above appeals were filed by the Assessing Officers (AO.s) raising various grounds of appeal

for the assessment years mentioned above.The tax effect involved in all the four cases is below the monetary limit,(Rs.10,00,000/-) prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),vide its Circular No.21/2015(F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt.) dated 10.12.2015. 2.Authorised Representatives for the appeals at S.N.1 & 2 appeared.The Departmental Representative(DR),on a query by the Bench,fairly conceded that the tax involved in both the cases was less than Rs.10.00 lacs. Considering these facts,we dismiss the appeals holding them as not maintainable. As a result, appeal filed by the Assessing Officers stands dismissed. फलतः िनधा�रती अिधका�रय� �ारा दािखल क� गई अपील� नामंजूर क� जाती ह�. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2016. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांक 29.02.2016 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- (अिमत शु�ल/ Amit Shukla ) (राजे�� / Rajendra) �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai, �दनांक Date: 29.02.2016 व.िन.स.Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ�

2. Respondent /��यथ� 3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब� अपीलीय आयकर आयु�, 4.The concerned CIT /संब� आयकर आयु� 5.DR “A ” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय �ितिनिध, ए खंडपीठ,आ.अ.�याया.मुंबई

4605/11,4684/12

ITO 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ABID MERCHANT, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments